stemelbow Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Over the years Church leaders have declared that either the Church is true or it is not, or that the Book of Mormon is true or it is not. There is no middle ground. Such a view blows my meager little mind. Where does it end when we live by such a standard? Could Nephi have erred in doctrine even once? If you go by the "it's either true or not" line of thinking there must only be truth found in the doctrine, no? There is no middle ground. What about historicity? Well, is the book true or not? If true, then the history that is recorded must not only be considered adequate history keeping, but accurate. I'm stumped how this works and would love to hear more thoughts. In the Title page we read, "...if there are faults they are the mistakes of men..." So there must be possibility of mistake and error. If so, then why can't we consider the Book of Mormon both true and not true? This really gets me because I think many wonder how far we can go in either direction? I say as far as our heart can take us. But it seems many in the Church reject such a thought. Thoughts?
Popular Post DJBrown Posted June 5, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 5, 2015 Over the years Church leaders have declared that either the Church is true or it is not, or that the Book of Mormon is true or it is not. There is no middle ground.Such a view blows my meager little mind. Where does it end when we live by such a standard? Could Nephi have erred in doctrine even once? If you go by the "it's either true or not" line of thinking there must only be truth found in the doctrine, no? There is no middle ground. What about historicity? Well, is the book true or not? If true, then the history that is recorded must not only be considered adequate history keeping, but accurate.I'm stumped how this works and would love to hear more thoughts. In the Title page we read, "...if there are faults they are the mistakes of men..." So there must be possibility of mistake and error. If so, then why can't we consider the Book of Mormon both true and not true?This really gets me because I think many wonder how far we can go in either direction? I say as far as our heart can take us. But it seems many in the Church reject such a thought.Thoughts? The Nephites either existed, or they didn't. Moroni either buried the plates, or he didn't. Either Christ visited the Americas, or He didn't. There is no middle ground. 5
stemelbow Posted June 5, 2015 Author Posted June 5, 2015 The Nephites either existed, or they didn't. And if you think they did not exist is there not room to get scriptural enlightenment from the BoM? What if there were Nephites but not as many as is suggested in the Book of Mormon? What if Alma existed but Nephi did not? Moroni either buried the plates, or he didn't. Could he have buried them in Central America somewhere and alter they were transported to NY? Either Christ visited the Americas, or He didn't. He could have in a visitation sense or a natural sense. There is no middle ground. Thanks for yoru thoughts. it seems like there is only middle ground. The extremes seem nonsensical to me.
JLHPROF Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 True or not when speaking of the Church and scripture refers to originating source, not 100% of content. The Church is true because it was established by God and Christ themselves, not because it is without error.The Scriptures are true because they were revealed by God and prophets and contain the word of God, not because they are without error. I take true here to mean authentic. 3
Brian 2.0 Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) The Nephites either existed, or they didn't. Moroni either buried the plates, or he didn't. Either Christ visited the Americas, or He didn't. There is no middle ground. That is correct. But for some, the BOM and church can still be "true" with either of those options. Edited June 5, 2015 by Brian 2.0 2
HappyJackWagon Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Over the years Church leaders have declared that either the Church is true or it is not, or that the Book of Mormon is true or it is not. There is no middle ground.Such a view blows my meager little mind. Where does it end when we live by such a standard? Could Nephi have erred in doctrine even once? If you go by the "it's either true or not" line of thinking there must only be truth found in the doctrine, no? There is no middle ground. What about historicity? Well, is the book true or not? If true, then the history that is recorded must not only be considered adequate history keeping, but accurate.I'm stumped how this works and would love to hear more thoughts. In the Title page we read, "...if there are faults they are the mistakes of men..." So there must be possibility of mistake and error. If so, then why can't we consider the Book of Mormon both true and not true?This really gets me because I think many wonder how far we can go in either direction? I say as far as our heart can take us. But it seems many in the Church reject such a thought.Thoughts?You're right that the church has definitely set up this either/or dichotomy which creates many black and white thinkers. But I agree with your assessment that it could easily be both true and false simultaneously. Example- What if the BoM did not happen historically but still taught true Christian principles. Would it be wrong for someone to find value with it even it didn't have historical value? Of course not. The principles taught would still hold value, just like many non-historical writings in the Bible still hold devotional value. In other words, "True" can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. It may qualify as true in some ways but not others. And considering that it doesn't even claim to be a "perfect" book we have to acknowledge that there will be some errors. 2
Mystery Meat Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 And if you think they did not exist is there not room to get scriptural enlightenment from the BoM? Sure, just like you might get enlightenment out of ****ens, Hemingway, Tolkien or even Rowling. 1
Dion Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 The record is completely true. That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything - for instance, the words of Satan in the Bible. And our interpretation could be off base. But the Book of Mormon is True with a capital "T" - not partially true. Or is it possible that some parts are more inspired than others? That doesn't make sense to me. 1
Gray Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 It's a false dichotomy. There are many positions between the two polar opposites of 100% true and 100% false. 3
stemelbow Posted June 5, 2015 Author Posted June 5, 2015 True or not when speaking of the Church and scripture refers to originating source, not 100% of content. The Church is true because it was established by God and Christ themselves, not because it is without error. The Scriptures are true because they were revealed by God and prophets and contain the word of God, not because they are without error. I take true here to mean authentic. I like that. But what it means to me is many things are true in that sense.
Buckeye Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Interestingly enough, the authors of the BOM did not present it as all or nothing. They tended to focus on Christ as the all or nothing. An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God. An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ. 3
stemelbow Posted June 5, 2015 Author Posted June 5, 2015 The record is completely true. That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything - for instance, the words of Satan in the Bible. And our interpretation could be off base. But the Book of Mormon is True with a capital "T" - not partially true. Or is it possible that some parts are more inspired than others? That doesn't make sense to me. Thanks Dion, and welcome. It only makes sense to me that part is true and part is not.
Buckeye Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 The record is completely true. That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything - for instance, the words of Satan in the Bible. And our interpretation could be off base. But the Book of Mormon is True with a capital "T" - not partially true. Or is it possible that some parts are more inspired than others? That doesn't make sense to me. Why in heavens not? Would it be odd to say that the Nephite's encounter with the Savior at Bountiful was just a little bit more inspired/true/important (you pick) than the accounts of Hagoth wandering off or of the Nephite's building homes out of cement rather than wood?
JLHPROF Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I like that. But what it means to me is many things are true in that sense. It only makes sense to me that part is true and part is not. As far as the BoM goes I prefer to think it is all "true" but many of the inspired words of the prophets contained therein are limited by the amount of light each prophet had. No prophet or apostle has ever understood the gospel 100% perfectly (except Christ). In some places in the BoM the prophet was operating under an Aaronic view which may not have contained a Melchizedek knowledge. The Book of Mormon is 100% true in that it truly came from God to Joseph Smith, it truly records the history of the Nephites/Lamanites etc, it truly contains inspired words from prophets, and it is truly for our benefit.Does that mean there are no errors? No. Even Joseph Smith said as much - it is the most correct book, but there can be errors. We always assume that when the title page says: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." that it refers to Joseph and the scribes and the inspired translation process. I would submit that the errors of men could also belong to some of the original writers too. Just a thought.
Rivers Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) The Book of Mormon either has a divine origin or it doesn't. It could still be divine yet have flaws. Scriptures may be God's word but they have human fingerprints all over them. Edited June 5, 2015 by Rivers 4
Buckeye Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 The Book of Mormon either has a divine origin or it doesn't. It could still be divine yet have flaws. Scriptures may be God's word but they have human fingerprints all over them. But the issue is where we draw the line on what "fingerprints" a member can express. Here's an example. Suppose your in gospel doctrine and someone uses the example of Nephi killing Laban for some point. Can you express the possibility that maybe Nephi made that story up to justify his actions without also casting doubt on the entire BOM? For some members I know (e.g., me) the answer is yes. I could still find great value in the BOM even if I concluded Nephi was lying on that point. But for other members it would be harder or even impossible. Everyone is fine with saying the scriptures are not perfect - in theory. But once you try to pin down anything specific, you run into problems. 1
JLHPROF Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Can you express the possibility that maybe Nephi made that story up to justify his actions without also casting doubt on the entire BOM? For some members I know (e.g., me) the answer is yes. I could still find great value in the BOM even if I concluded Nephi was lying on that point. But for other members it would be harder or even impossible. I don't see how you can do that completely. If Nephi was lying about God telling him to kill Laban, that would throw doubt on all the revelation and blessings he received afterwards - The vision of the tree/rod, the vision of Christ & the Apostles, being freed from the cords, the vision of the two Churches, being filled with power etc. All of those things come into doubt if you believe Nephi was a murderer who killed Laban in cold blood. I could not accept that God would give such manifestations and blessings to a murderer. 1
stemelbow Posted June 5, 2015 Author Posted June 5, 2015 I don't see how you can do that completely. If Nephi was lying about God telling him to kill Laban, that would throw doubt on all the revelation and blessings he received afterwards - The vision of the tree/rod, the vision of Christ & the Apostles, being freed from the cords, the vision of the two Churches, being filled with power etc. Not necessarily. Must we conclude that if one lies than that one cannot give adequate revelation? That'd suggest no person ever could receive revelation since we all lie and have lied. All of those things come into doubt if you believe Nephi was a murderer who killed Laban in cold blood. I could not accept that God would give such manifestations and blessings to a murderer. Oh, stop with this presentist garbage! Back in those days a prophet was supposed to murder unbelievers who were passed out before them.
JLHPROF Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Not necessarily. Must we conclude that if one lies than that one cannot give adequate revelation? That'd suggest no person ever could receive revelation since we all lie and have lied. The lie is not the reason the following revelations would be invalid.The murder is. Oh, stop with this presentist garbage! Back in those days a prophet was supposed to murder unbelievers who were passed out before them. Very funny.
Buckeye Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I don't see how you can do that completely. If Nephi was lying about God telling him to kill Laban, that would throw doubt on all the revelation and blessings he received afterwards - The vision of the tree/rod, the vision of Christ & the Apostles, being freed from the cords, the vision of the two Churches, being filled with power etc. All of those things come into doubt if you believe Nephi was a murderer who killed Laban in cold blood. I could not accept that God would give such manifestations and blessings to a murderer. Your view is just a valid as mine. I might be too liberal. But in the end, if God could reveal the Psalms through David, despite his murdering Uriah, I don't see why he couldn't also reveal important truths through Nephi, even if the Laban story is bunk. And on the Laban story there is plenty of ground between "100% accurate" and "cold blood murder." For instance, Nephi could have killed Laban in self-defense. I could add God working through Paul H. Dunn, despite his fabrications. And I've seen God work through local leaders who were later revealed to have been guilty of serious offenses at the time they were acting. I'll grant that it's puzzling. But I choose to believe that God still works wonders through fallible men even when their failings are arguably greater than my own. 3
JLHPROF Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Your view is just a valid as mine. I might be too liberal. But in the end, if God could reveal the Psalms through David, despite his murdering Uriah, I don't see why he couldn't also reveal important truths through Nephi, even if the Laban story is bunk. And on the Laban story there is plenty of ground between "100% accurate" and "cold blood murder." For instance, Nephi could have killed Laban in self-defense. I could add God working through Paul H. Dunn, despite his fabrications. And I've seen God work through local leaders who were later revealed to have been guilty of serious offenses at the time they were acting. I'll grant that it's puzzling. But I choose to believe that God still works wonders through fallible men even when their failings are arguably greater than my own. Thank you for clarifying your position. I don't agree, but it makes more sense now.
stemelbow Posted June 5, 2015 Author Posted June 5, 2015 The lie is not the reason the following revelations would be invalid. The murder is. Interesting take. Some have argued, although I can't see it as convincing at this point, that Joseph murdered. Some have argued that Brigham had murdered. If the accusations can be substantiated would that put you squarely in the realm of Non-Mormon Non-restorationist?
Buckeye Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 The lie is not the reason the following revelations would be invalid.The murder is. In that case, note that I never said I "murder." I just said that Nephi could have been untruthful about being led by the spirit to kill.
JLHPROF Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 In that case, note that I never said I "murder." I just said that Nephi could have been untruthful about being led by the spirit to kill. Fair enough. There is also a huge difference in connotation between "murder" and "kill" that goes to motivation and situation. Most people (who aren't hippies) don't consider most wartime soldiers to be murderers, even if they kill in battle.
Recommended Posts